We Never Promised You A Rose Garden

Democrats Unwilling to Meet with Iraq/Afghanistan Vets that want Victory in Iraq

On Tuesday, Vets for Freedom went to Capitol Hill to appeal to the members of the US Congress.  Five days prior, they had requested 5 minutes with the Majority Leader and Speaker of the House.  Neither Senator Harry Reid or Rep Nancy Pelosi could find the 5 minutes to consider the request of 40 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to give General Petraeus the chance to pursue victory in Iraq.

Vets for victory links several articles and video of the assault on the Hill:

Vets For Freedom

Here's the NPR story with Pete Hegseth's statement:

Iraq Pullout Date to Test Republicans

If you are interested in getting involved, visit the site.  Vets for Victory will be supporting Gen. Petraeus in force in Washington, DC in September.

Semper Fidelis.

Pelosi and Reid: "Come on Maliki! Get out of the Capitol and do something!"

The United State’s Congress stopped worrying about foreign fighters, aggressive governments toppling the republic and civil war 142 years ago*, so why is it so hard for them to get legislation passed when democrats have the majority and no one is shooting at them?

   

Of the 6 legislative initiatives for the first 100 hours of the 110^th US Congress, only 1 reached the President’s desk (minimum wage).  That means that their own benchmark report card has them batting 1 for 6 (technically there are 8 distinct pieces of legislation that address 6 initiatives that were supposed to be passed in 6 days).  The electorate has rated the Congress with a 24% approval rating (Gallup).  The President (whose approval rating is at 29% - Gallup) vetoed the first Iraq surrender bill (HR1591). Congress hasn’t passed its own Big Oil bill**.  As Mr. Taranto has pointed out on numerous occasions, corruption is still a problem.  Promised bi-partisanship went out the window in the first 100 seconds.  The US Congress is working overtime on defeating our military in Iraq.  In the approximately 2300 hours*** since the 110^th Congress convened, they have passed a total of three pieces of legislation.  I’d call that unsatisfactory performance.

     

* Calculated based on the American Revolution in 1775-1783, the “Burning of Washington” in 1814 and the end of the unpleasantness in the American Civil War from 1861-1865.

** HR 6 passed the house but the Senate removed Title I of the bill, effectively re-instating $32 billion dollars in tax relief for Oil Companies.  Now it’s stuck in committee.  Remember “school house rock?” Committee is where “Bill” goes to die. 

*** Based on 85 hour work week associated with the 100 hours of those first 6 days.

From a report Prepared by the Offices of Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO), Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-FL), and Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA):

Democrats: 0 for 6 in '07 (Good articles from WASHPOST, WASHTIMES, LATIMES, ETC)

From The Harvard Salient

Madame Speaker's 100-hour Failure

From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-Hour_Plan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress

My MOTO Email to RCT-6

Over at BlackFive, they've organized an email writing effort to "surge" American support for Victory in Iraq to the Marines of RCT-6 (be sure to check it out).  I had a run in with a Mr. Rod Nordland of Newsweek a few weeks ago at a lecture entitled "The War Correspondent."  I thought the Marines of RCT-6 might get a kick out of it.

Marines,

You may hear all the bullshit from the media, all the hype from Hollywood actors/activists and the crazy talk from the “hill,” but here’s the thing – I have yet to talk to a NORMAL American, democrat or republican, that believes that we can afford to walk away from Iraq. I have talked to friends; friends that marched in anti-war demonstrations before OIF-I that now understand and actively support what you are doing in Iraq. Don’t get me wrong - the Honorable Mr. Reid and Mrs. Pelosi may have a way of making you feel like your balls have been dipped in dog shite from time to time but here’s a story to brighten your day:

I work at Penn State University. Several weeks ago the former Baghdad bureau chief (2003-2005) from Newsweek magazine came back to his alma mater to receive a distinguished graduate award. While Mr. Ron Nordland was here he gave a lecture entitled “The War Correspondent." When this distinguished gentlemen stood before the audience (journalism department faculty, a journalism summer session class, a few other cats and dogs plus me) his multimedia presentation failed and he was forced to read from a backup lecture about why it’s no fun being a war correspondent anymore.

Now I could appreciate the gallows humor involved in stories from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia about booze and women, about hopping on Huey’s and bombing around the countryside in search of a story, but I was a bit taken aback by the dismal portrayal of the plight of the modern foreign correspondent in a war zone since everything went down hill in Lebanon in the 1980s.  Mr. Nordland described his Iraq experience in terms of a military that only shows the journalist what they want them to see, a journalist that can’t go into the country side to report on the war without fear of kidnapping and beheading, and a journalist forced to hide behind contracted bodyguards and body armor.  Once the Q&A period opened up, he proceeded to explain to the audience why the situation in Iraq is consumed by the hopelessness of the death spiral (Here’s a Newsweek article by him that clearly illustrates his position http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8101422/site/newsweek/). 

At this point I announced my presence.

(Please understand that all these quotes are paraphrased from memory, but I haven’t changed the tone or message.)

"My name is Mike Hendrickson; I work in the Applied Research Laboratory here at Penn State. In my part time job I am a Marine Infantry Officer preparing for a deployment to Iraq.  Mr Nordland, can you explain why the Iraq analysis of a distinguished professional journalist is completely divergent from the estimate of the situation of a professional war fighter like me?  Can you explain why you feel the situation in Iraq is lost, but I feel that the United States Military can and will be successful in the long term?"

I don’t believe that he had anticipated that a military person would be in the room.  He shot back “Have you been to Iraq?"

I don’t believe that he had anticipated that a combat veteran would respond to that question either.  I returned fire “Nope.  I was in Afghanistan."

The essence of his response to my question can be paraphrased by the following:  you military guys believe what you are told to believe.

Roger that.

Needless to say the exchange continued.  I silenced myself, feeling that further debate was not acceptable in that forum.

One of the professors then asked Mr. Nordland – “If you were SecDef, what would you do in Iraq." Nordland responded (to his credit) “Hey, I’m just a journalist; I’m not qualified to answer that question."

So the moderator looked at me “Mike, what do you think we should do?"

I said “Look, I’m just an infantry captain. I would not presume to be able to parse the National Security Strategy of the United States into a coherent plan in Iraq from the vantage point of the SecDef. However, I will tell you that the commitment of the American people to support the long term efforts of the United States military’s mission in Iraq will be key to our success. Please remember this – 63 years after the end of WWII, we still have forces in Germany and Japan."

A few more questions were fielded and I eventually asked a non-Iraq, general American media question:

“Mr. Nordland, do you believe that there is a burgeoning political divide in the American media between Fox News and Rupert Murdock on one side and news organizations like NBC, who have apparently made a conscious decision to go after the liberal demographic, on the other? Is it just background noise?"

He immediately responded “Fox News is the Satan of the American media."

Wow. For a split second I felt like Bob Woodward.

The moderator then looked at a cute little second year journalism major in the second row who had stated earlier that she wanted to be in “entertainment,” and said “Ok, you’ve got the Newsweek Baghdad bureau chief here; you have one question to ask him, fire away."

She cocks her head to the side, thinks for a split second, and fires out the FPF “Sir, given the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq, given the fact that you must do your reporting behind bodyguards and body armor and give that it is logistically challenging and expensive to even leave the safety of the green zone, doesn’t that create a serious bias in your reporting?"

After a long winded response Mr. Nordland paused and said “Does that make me biased, yeah probably."

So here’s my point – Initially I felt that I had lost the argument with this guy. I didn’t feel that I could stay on the attack as it would not have been the proper venue for debate. I felt I had missed my opportunity to demonstrate the magnitude of the problem that the media creates for the grunts slugging it out on the ground.  However, that second year journalism student at Penn State who wants to be the next Mary Hart on Entertainment Tonight got it in a heart beat. My faith in the American public was resurrected on that day. Each one of you need to take comfort in knowing that even Ron Nordland, despite his bias, understands that leaving Iraq without finishing the job will be catastrophic to the regional security of the Middle East and eventually a serious threat to the National Security of the United States. But what is even more important is that the American public is beginning, however slowly, to come to a definitive understanding about Iraq – they refuse to walk away when marines are willing to charge into the fray.

America might not be able to verbalize it yet, but they are telling you that they support victory in Iraq.

Luck, Safety and Godspeed my brothers.

Semper Fidelis.

Capt H, USMCR/0302

Why Don't They Ask: What Would Happen If We Were Victorious In Iraq?

Roadside bombs and IEDs will not defeat us in Iraq. Snipers will not defeat us in Iraq. Terrorism will not defeat us in Iraq. The simple fact is that there is not a military, militant or terrorist organization capable of defeating the American military in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The only way we loose, is if liberal America convinces us to surrender.

It’s easy for liberal America to point the finger at the administration and blame George Bush for failure in Iraq. I cannot accept that analysis because those who make the argument also make it clear that they do not understand the history or warfare. Do they demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of Clausewitz, Sun Tzu and Mao? Do they understand "People's War" and the concept of "defeating the superior with the inferior?" Have they taken the time to study the North African debacle of 1942, the impact of fighting a new war, on a new battlefield against a new enemy? Do they know how close we came to being defeated by the Nazis, and that perseverance ensured that, in the end, the invasion of Normandy would succeed?

Liberal America needs to turn the map and ask - what is the impact of success in Iraq? What does the future hold for the middle east and the world? If I supported the work being done in Iraq, what kind of impact could it have on a lasting peace? What if Iraq became a moderate Islamic regime allied with Jordan, Egypt and the United States and Europe?

The critical vulnerability for the United States in Iraq is our national will. It can also be a force multiplier.

I would submit that publicly supporting the mission to achieve a stable democratic Iraq, would be the difference between victory and defeat. I believe that victory equals a lasting peace in the middle east. I am convinced that surrender guarantees that we will be fighting in the sandbox again 10 years from now. If liberals don't understand this dynamic, they are merely narrow minded ideologues, ignorant of the lessons of history.

Semper Fidelis.

La Reddition du Congrès

In the pursuit of victory in Iraq, the US military relies upon lessons from battlefields like Gettysburg, Normandy and Fallujah.  We gain strength from our leaders' fierce convictions and are motivated to overcome long odds by their character.  We revel in the words of Medal of Honor recipient Colonel Davide M. Shoup, wounded during the botched landing on Tarawa and facing 4500 Japanese defenders.  With his back to the sea, he reported "Casualties many; percentage of dead not known; combat efficiency: we are winning."  We fight on, in the most demanding environment imaginable, because of the individuals of our troop.  Warriors like Marine 2nd Lt. John Paul Bobo, who almost single handedly fought off a company of North Vietnamese with his rifle in his hand, and the severed stump of his right leg jammed in the dirt.  He also received the Medal of Honor, posthumously.  We strive for victory like General David Petreaus, who said in his first commander's message in Iraq.  "Hard is not hopeless."  We are confident that we can be victorious in Iraq because the potential for success is measured through the jagged prism of American History.

In the pursuit of victory in Washington, politicians rely on the lessons from battlefields like, Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida.  They gain strength from their own fierce convictions and are motivated to overcome long odds through misinformation, oversimplification and emotion.  They revel in the massive campaign of bumper stickers that proclaim: "Support the troops, bring them home;"  or "Why is it that there is always enough money for war but not enough for education;" and "Buck Fush."  They fight on, oblivious to the professed intentions of our enemies and ignorant of an emboldened and aggressive domestic terrorist movement wallowing in Spain's "redeployment" of forces from Iraq in the wake of 3/11.  Washington politicians strive for victory in 2008, like Democratic Representative David Obey, issuing the rallying cry for de-funding the mission in Iraq: "You can't end the war if you're going against the supplemental.  It's time these idiot liberals understood that."  These politicians are confident that they will be victorious in Washington because they measure defeat in Iraq through the jagged prism of Vietnam.

Regardless of what America might think, the professional warrior is disheartened by the pedantic political firestorm at home.  While the US military has been fighting, bleeding and dying, Americans contemplate the Iraq war with "non-binding resolutions" and national anti-war protests.  When America is faced with a diminishing pool of willing candidates for military service, some turn to blast the US Army for lowering recruiting standards.  Further, the same politicians who are responsible for the lack of funding for military heath care and Veterans Affairs programs  stomp around Washington, stab their fingers at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and hope that no one will remember that they voted to BRAC Walter Reed Army Hospital in November of 2005.  Politicians in Washington must relinquish the self-destructive "deny, deny, counter accuse" mantra.  The Speaker's San Francisco front yard fracas is a prime example of the dangers of using "your constituents" as pawns of political brinkmanship.  America cannot continue to foil itself.  If one should claim "support the troops but not the war," one must understand that real consequences engender such a distinction.

I am fearful that America is no longer capable of wining; not just in Iraq, but anywhere.  Can we ever succeed if America cannot demonstrate resolution at home?  When this nation clings to pessimism, defeatism and death as the metrics to measure Iraq - America has a moral responsibility to order the military to come home tomorrow.  Slowly bleeding our military effectiveness with "non-binding resolutions" won't cut it.  Avoiding a Constitutional crisis is not an excuse.  Revoking the President's authority to invade Iraq 4 years after the invasion, is laughable.  Leaders don't shirk responsibility of find excuses to side-step political peril; they seize the initiative and affect change, reliant upon courageous honor in commitment to action.

If Presidential hopefuls want to "end this war" they must act decisively in Congress today - declaring that pursuing victory in Iraq would require a cost too hight to bear.   But they must be advised - such action was forged in the classic definition of surrender.

Mission Accomplishment and Troop Welfare at Walter Reed

The biggest and most egregious failure at Walter Reed rests on the shoulders of the military leadership.  Sure the General in charge was fired, but he should be court-martialed as well.  He should go to jail, be dishonorably discharged and loose his pension.  The Army should investigate every single CG that was responsible for Walter Reed for the last 10 years and determine if they are culpable as well.  If they are, they should go to jail or at the very least, loose their pensions.  There are two standing orders that apply to every single leader in the military, in every branch of service:

1)  Accomplish your mission; and

2)  Troop welfare.

Sometimes on the battlefield, mission accomplishment and troop welfare are diametrically opposed.  At Walter Reed and in the military medical system as a whole - they are like mutually supporting battle positions with interlocking fields of fire.  It seems to me that the leadership at Walter Reed fell asleep in their fighting holes and allowed themselves to be overrun.

It is no surprise to me that the Walter Reed debacle has occurred.  Unfortunately, the military has long suffered from a deficit in reliable and adequate medical care, practitioners and facilities.  This was apparent from the beginning of my military service - from my 1992 physical evaluation prior to boot camp, to treatment at Walter Reed and Bethesda in 2005 and my dealings with Veterans Affairs following my discharge from active duty in 2006. 

Here's the problem with the current finger pointing and blame game in Washington:  The situation at Walter Reed is a function of long-term neglect, inadequate funding and the cultivation of an anachronistic bureaucracy over 20+ years.  The deficiencies of the military medical system are compounded by three very important factors:

1)  Military medicine has not been stressed by large numbers of war-related casualties since the 1970s;

2)  The current military medical board evaluation system is approxiamtely 1/3 the size of the Vietnam era system (largest number of cases since Vietnam - 15000 cases reviewed in 2005 verses 19000 cases in 1972); and   

2)  The advances in battlefield life-saving techniques have become so advanced, that there are more casualties (vice KIAs) than ever before, and those individuals require long-term wound care and rehabilitation that far exceeds the capability of the medical system.

Of course the Bush Administration must accept some of the blame for the problems at Walter Reed; former SecDEF Rumsfeld was the architect of the "privatization" push in the military medical system.  I believe that part of the problem (as in the execution of the OIF battleplan) lies in his policy of "transformation."

However, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been underfunded for years.  Further, the defense budget was dramatically cut during the Clinton White House as well.  The effect of substantial DoD budget cuts are manifested in the areas that do not directly support breaking things and killing people.  Unfortunately, I believe that many people in the military and congress have convinced themselves that the best way to support the military health care system, is to focus on technology.  In order to decrease the numbers of KIAs on the battlefield, we made the pointy end of the spear the sharpest it has ever been.  In this regard, our betters have far surpassed expectations.

But we never expected that IEDs would become the weapon of choice for our adversaries.  We concentrated on creating air dominance with technologically superior aircraft and incredibly accurate munitions.  We made more powerful bullets and protected our troops with better body armor.  We designed more venerable tanks and armored vehicles outfitted with advanced optics able to see the enemy and engage them at long distances with fire control systems able to track and engage multiple targets with devastating firepower.  We networked communications and created information domination.  For this, no one is to blame.  No one saw the assymetric fight coming in Iraq.  No one saw the resurgence of counter-insurgency.  No one has a crystal ball. 

In reality, the military procurement and budgetary cycle requires a crystal ball; one that can see 10-15 years into the future.  DoD and congress have historically been forced to guess at the construct of the future battlefield.  Since the mid 1990s, DoD and congress have attempted to "shape" the future battlefield with technology in order to mitigate the risks of prediciting future war.  In this regard, they have failed miserably.  Iraq is as asymmetric a fight as one might find and requires humans, not technology to fight effectively. 

The issue here has nothing to do with politics.  We can't blame democrat or republican.  We must fix a system that has been allowed to become disfunctional over decades of neglect.  We never leave a warrior on the battlefield, so why have we abandoned them once they return home?

Semper Fidelis.

To the American Public and Mr. William Arkin:

Dear America and Mr. William Arkin,

With all due respect, here is the problem with the currency of popular Iraq analysis and the back bone of my criticism of Mr. Arkin:

The American public, in general, does not understand warfare because they have not studied it. The logical conclusion for us (the military) is that the opinion of the public mean little more than those of the Monday morning armchair quarterback.

I have been in the Marine Corps for 14 years. I began as a recruit at MCRD Parris Island and am now a Captain of marines. I have more responsibility that 95% of Americans will ever be required to shoulder. I am a graduate of more military schools than I have room to list; they include the Expeditionary Warfare School, the College Command and Staff and a Masters in National Security Strategic Studies from the Naval War College. I am also a combat veteran.

So what?

Here's the bottom line, I have spent nearly my entire adult life studying warfare, conflict and foreign policy. I don't point this out to sound "elitist," I only point this out to explain that my job requires me to be a professional warfighter.  Mr. Arkin, along with the majority of Americans that continue to contemplate this war, haven't spent the requisite time to become an expert on the conduct of warfare.  Most Americans, began really digging into those issues after 9/11. Those who have served or have studied prior to 9/11, (including Mr. Arkin, many in this Administration and Congress) have WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War as their frame of reference and foundation for metrics.

The inherent problem for America is that the fight in Iraq and the larger GWOT is new; just as new as maneuver warfare in N. Africa in 1942-43. The point is - armchair quarterbacks and cold warriors cannot fully understand the complexity that this new battlespace offers after taking a few classes, reading some books and providing "reasoned" commentary. One can develop theories, but those theories are not fact, nor have they been adequately tested in the GWOT battlespace. Hence, theory does not equate expertise.

The experts are people like me; not because I am an egomaniacal elitist military guy, but because the marine, soldier, sailor, airmen and coasty are learning how to fight this war successfully, in the battlespace, on a daily basis. With all due respect to the American public - books, sound bites, newspapers and opinion pieces do not provide the lessons learned that our military gleans from the streets, alleyways and deserts of Afghanistan, Al Anbar, Baghdad and Diyala. Reading newspapers, surfing the net and watching cable news does not provide the rigor necessary to make sound judgments on foreign policy or grand strategy.

Please let us do our job. Please realize that we (the military), not the American public or Mr. Arkin, are the professionals and duty experts trained with your tax dollars and that we, being human, make mistakes. Those mistakes do not mean that we are incompetent - they merely mean that we are learning to do something that this nation's military has never done on a battlefield; we were only trained to execute the theoretical tactics, techniques and procedures devised by our Generals and Policy Makers.  This process is defined by the history of warfare and will always remain bounded by the reality of confict and humanity.  Unfortunately, the battlefield - being the most demanding and unforgiving environment on earth - provides hard lessons requiring the blood and lives of America’s sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters.

War is always hell and victory is always determined by the strength of a nations will.

Semper Fidelis.

A Letter to the Speaker of the House

Dear Madame Speaker,

On September 11, 2001 I was deployed in Australia with the 15th MEU. Five months later I left Afghanistan and returned to the states. During that time I was overwhelmed by and immensely proud of our country’s willingness to put aside partisan differences and prosecute the global war against terrorism. Today, I am preparing for a second combat deployment, this time to Iraq, and I am dismayed and saddened by the actions of my countrymen.

I am deeply concerned about the President’s new plan for Iraq. I am concerned that it has no hope of success. My concerns are not founded in the abilities of our nation’s military or the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces. I am concerned that your party and the American citizens that follow your leadership will fail once again to put partisanship aside and fully support victory in Iraq. I am afraid that the blood of my brother and sister marines will be on your hands because of your unwillingness to do everything in your power to ensure that we are victorious in Iraq.

The plan outlined by the President last night was the last best hope for success. As was the initial foray into Iraq, it carries with it enormous risk and like all audacious plans in war, relies on more than a little luck. Unfortunately, the “incalculable” effect of our national will has not been and will not be brought to bear against our enemies in Iraq because your party has sought to undermine the military effort and the national will ever since we crossed the line of departure into Iraq five years ago. It is painfully obvious that the political defeat of President Bush is synonymous with America’s defeat in Iraq.

Mrs. Pelosi, I respectfully request that you stand in the House, with your comrades in the Senate, and give the President and my marines the support we need to make a legitimate stab at final victory in Iraq. The President has provided you with a time table and a benchmark to measure success. If there is no significant progress by November of this year and we have not achieved the metrics outlined last night, relentless criticism is warranted and should reach a crescendo unmatched in the Iraq debate.

Until then, I still believe, as almost all of my comrades in arms do, that we can and will be victorious in Iraq. Please do not undermine our efforts. Please support our mission. Help us to be victorious.

Semper Fidelis.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michael J. Hendrickson

Captain 0302/USMCR

The Opportunity for Victory in Iraq

It seems that this week has exposed some giant cracks in the ideology of the American defeatist camp.

1)  All of the sudden President Admyneedablowjob is in trouble at home, while sitting at the poker table and betting the kitchen sink with a fist full of shite.

2)  The Iraqi situation, while still fraught with violence and chaos, is showing increasingly resilience from the moderates backed, guided and supported by the most influential Shi'ite religious leader in Iraq.

What does this mean?  Obviously, it doesn't mean that I'm jumping up and down like Nevile Chamberlain on crystal meth screaming VICTORY and PEACE IN OUR TIME!

The bottom line is that the situation in Iraq is at the final cross-roads. Victory is still attainable, military operations can have a positive short term effect (24-36 months) and diplomatic/political/military operational objectives must be attacked in a synergistic / mutually supporting environment.

This is the last chance to get it right. I’ll leave the political/diplomacy up to the duty experts, but from a military perspective I think we need to prosecute 5 operational objectives in three phases:

Phase I - Set Conditions for the Physical Security of Iraq

1) Isolate Iran by fomenting the internal strife. If Iran wants to fight a proxy war against the US in Iraq, let’s turn the table and fight a proxy war against them in their own country. Start with pushing the Iraqi Kurds toward unification with their brothers in NW Iraq. Who knows, maybe the Turkmen and Azerbaijanis will jump on the band wagon.  Simultaneous diplomacy with Syria must be a priority.

End state – Iran’s government becomes internally focused, unable to effectively influence its neighbors.

2) Continue operations in An Bar.

End state – Insurgents and Foreign Fighters unable to effectively prosecute an organized insurgency inside An Bar province.

3) Surge forces (30-40k all in Baghdad). Start a true clear, hold, rebuild operation. Start from the green zone and push salients out into the city. Clear, hold and rebuild in each (like spokes of a wagon wheel). Then move laterally to close the spaces between the spokes (again, clear, hold, rebuild). Repeat. Essentially you are increasing the size of the Green Zone by an order of magnitude. Here's the key - this effort must include the Iraqi forces. The Iraqis should hold the interior of each salient, Coalition forces should hold the perimeter and both Iraqis and Americans (and the Brits if they are able) should rebuild together. Aside from increasing the physical security situation, this would accomplish a myriad of positives for the Iraqi people, the government and further the the proficiency of the Iraqi security forces.

End state – Baghdad secure, Mahdi army defeated, and Sadr city cordoned by US and Iraqi forces poised to launch follow-on operations (in Sadr city).

Phase II - Transition Main Effort to Iraqi Forces

4) Once Baghdad is secure and An Bar is under control, the main effort of US Forces becomes the cordon of the country of Iraq. We cut off all rat lines. We secure Iraq’s boarders with Iran and Syria, aggressively patrol An Bar and Ninawa and Diyala, and allow the Iraqi Security forces to clear, hold and rebuild the interior of Iraq (with limited US support).

End state – Insurgency/Foreign fighters unable to rely on ratlines for resupply and Iraqi army able to conduct operations against the remnants of the insurgency without being impeded by foreign influx of forces and supplies.

Phase III

5) Redeployment.

End state – A phased redeployment of the majority of US combat divisions CONUS.

The Iraq Surrender Group, Iran-Contra and the Path to Victory

In order to cause the enemy to come of their own volition, extend some profit. In order to prevent the enemy from coming forth, show them the potential for harm. Sun Tzu - The Art of War

The Democrat vs Republican Group Think (ISG debate) is really getting annoying.  Here my bottom line - the Iraq Surrender Group report is only a piece of the puzzle.  We need an aggressive strategy to win back the initiative in Iraq, Internationally and Domestically.  Two specific issues come to mind when analyzing the ISG report vis-a-vis grand strategy:

1)  I don’t care how many military guys were consulted on the report; you put a bunch of old school cold war diplomats in a room together and you will end up with a DIPLOMATIC solution.  Not that diplomacy is bad; but its only one tool in the tool box.  You can pound a nail with a caulking gun, but all you get is a big fucking mess. So now lets here what the CJCS working group comes up with.  Bet ya $10 billion it’s more objective and comprehensive that the ISG.

2)  I was thinking about Iran–Contra the other day and stumbled upon a wonderful logic bomb: are the liberals the same ya-hoos who freaked out over Ronnie’s back door deals with Iran to get our hostages back and marginalize the radical components of the Iranian regime?  What the fuck has changed in the last 20 years?  When they invaded our Embassy and kidnapped Americans they wanted to impeach the President for negotiating with terrorists – now Iran is fighting a proxy war against us in Iraq and they want to deal with them?  Whiskey, tango, foxtrot over.

Wanna hear my strategy for victory in Iraq? It’s all about seizing the initiative.

A) Increase troops by 10-20k and send them all to Baghdad. Start a real clear, hold, rebuild mission from the Green Zone by pushing salients into Baghdad proper, clear them, and hold (like a wagon wheel).  Establish a perimeter then clear, hold and rebuild the interior of the wagon wheel until you have a bigger Green Zone.  Eventually, you secure all of Baghdad.  Then you look at the rest of the country.  Point is – by then; you should have an Iraqi Army and Police force ready for the job.  And you tell em – once Baghdad is secure they’re up; we will transition US forces to isolating the interior of Iraq by pushing to the boarders with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria and Iran. Turkey will take care of its own boarder.

B)  Fight a proxy war against the Iranian regime utilizing the Kurds.  Once the Kurds start fighting the Iranians in Iran (for unification) chances are the Azerbaijanis and Turkmeni will jump on the bandwagon.  If they don’t we can always give them a push.  If Turkey doesn’t like it – tell those fuckers to get the Iranians to stop funding and supplying the insurgency in Iraq.

3)  Get serious about the relationship between domestic politics and Victory in Iraq.  Stop pussy footing around with the debate.  Either you want us to win or you don’t.   Where is the propaganda machine of WWII?  We need to get this country on a war footing.  Gen Pace must be involved.  We are loosing the information warfare piece here at home.  The only way to get it back is to go on the offensive.

Anyway, I’m just a dumb grunt living in Academia.  What do I know?

Semper Fidelis